KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision on the constitutionality of 52 appointments to various constitutional bodies made through ordinances by the then KP Sharma Oli-led government has sparked a fierce debate across Nepal, especially on social media.
The late-night ruling from the constitutional bench delivered a split verdict, with five justices issuing three different opinions — leaving much to interpretation and generating significant public backlash.
The appointments in question were made in 2020 and 2021 under a controversial ordinance that bypassed the usual parliamentary process. After years of legal limbo, the Court finally issued its decision on Wednesday night, validating the appointments. But the nature of the decision, its timing, division among the justices, and broader implications, has provoked reactions ranging from celebration to condemnation.
On social media platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), many users expressed frustration, arguing the judiciary had failed to uphold constitutional integrity and had instead reinforced a precedent of political interference. Some even went so far as to call the verdict a “dark night” for Nepal’s legal history.
Journalist Sitaram Baral summarized the dilemma faced by many in the media, writing, “If we don’t write about it, we fail journalism. If we do, we risk contempt of court.”
Lawyer and writer Sarita Tiwari called the verdict “a chilling reminder” of how deeply politicized the judiciary has become.
“When party loyalists become judges, such unfortunate precedents are inevitable,” she wrote, adding that such midnight rulings threaten the very foundation of justice.
Some described the verdict as a “judicial endorsement of unconstitutional overreach,” while others warned of the long-term implications of allowing ordinance-driven appointments to stand without clear accountability.
Contrasting the criticism, members of the opposition party CPN-UML celebrated the ruling as a legal endorsement of decisions made during their tenure. UML leaders thanked the Court and expressed hope that the decision would end the constitutional limbo and allow the commissions to function effectively.
UML Deputy General Secretary Bishnu Rimal questioned whether the court was truly utilizing its resources, wisdom, and time effectively.
“Let the Court look into itself,” he wrote.
Party leader Usha Kala Rai hailed the verdict as “historic,” praising the Court for validating the appointments made under the leadership of then-Prime Minister KP Oli. She extended congratulations to the officeholders, calling for an impactful remainder of their terms.
Former bureaucrat Hari Gopal Karmacharya, however, responded to Rai’s post critically: “Should we be celebrating judicial decisions made in the middle of the night on appointments that were themselves made in the shadows of an ordinance after dissolving Parliament?”
The verdict has also divided the legal community. While some lawyers aligned with UML praised the Court for ending uncertainty, others questioned the integrity of the decision-making process.
Advocate Shiva Aryal, affiliated with UML, said the ruling would finally allow the commissions to work effectively. “We welcome this decision as a step toward administrative stability,” he said.
Still, critics within the legal field argue that the judiciary’s independence has eroded due to political appointments and undue influence from party interests.
The controversy stems from KP Oli’s government recommending appointments to key constitutional bodies, including the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Public Service Commission, and National Human Rights Commission, through an ordinance. The opposition challenged the legitimacy of the appointments, claiming they violated the spirit and procedures outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court took more than four years to deliver a ruling, during which the appointees continued to hold office despite questions about their legitimacy.
While the verdict has temporarily resolved the status of the appointees, it has left deeper concerns unaddressed — especially regarding the independence of the judiciary, the scope of executive power under ordinances, and the integrity of constitutional procedures.
The ruling has not only reignited debate over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive but also highlighted the crisis of trust in Nepal’s democratic institutions. For many, the decision reflects a larger pattern of political maneuvering that threatens the country’s constitutional order.
Comment